Originally posted by semperfortis
Do you feel we should avoid them, or discuss them more completely to come to a better understanding of the reason they are inflammatory?

Personally, I believe that it is the avoidance of discussing a term or phrase, the insistence on a phrase having one meaning and only one and not
being willing to discuss terms that gives them their power.

So I think an honest discussion of a term or phrase is nothing but a Good Thing.

Everyone here, I am sure, is familiar with the limitations on free speech. One can not yell fire in a crowded theater, certain words are classified
now as "fighting words", etc.

), I am in general opposed to constraints on free speech based on emotional impact. And yes, I've been on the
receiving end of my share.

Using this as the template, should we as ATSer's avoid specific terms and if so, what terms would qualify as "Non ATS terms? Who would decide?

It gets a bit gray, here. Discussion as opposed to use of various terms or phrases. While I maintain a high regard for freedom of speech
as noted above, it is clear to me that using some phrases or words, depending on where I am and to whom I'm speaking, results in less effective
communication. So I frequently choose to constrain my speech. But it is my free choice.

(Example: At home, my speech is freely laced with, shall we say "colorful metaphors". At work, and in professional written communication, never.)

But those same terms can be discussed, I believe.

I really think this can be discussed on an intellectual level and not so much an emotional one.

Agreed.

If that takes "banning" certain words from the study of the phenomenon, I am willing to comply. If only to keep some semblance of peace and make the
topic more productive.

I'm not so sure I am, if I'm following your point, here. As I say, I believe this act would add to the (mostly negative) power various terms and
phrases seem to possess. Or, more accurately, the power that we humans give them. I prefer to think that through a real, honest discussion of these
words, with warts and all, we might move towards eliminating the negative power associated with them.

I just want people to notice one thing: these aspects about "victim culture" are not
"race related". They just seem to explain how such a word has been popularly ingrained into national culture and given legitimacy by those who
practice white privilege.

As far as I'm concerned, I still feel that victim culture is a term that denigrates the experiences and sources of non-white people. And I have
found that some whites are very good at creating phrases that seem to do the trick in terms of practicing "linguistic gymnastics".

Especially in Bonilla's report on "color-blind" theory on this accord, he especially outlines the aspect that people from the dominant culture
create these vacous phrases as a way to distance themselves from actualities which occur in society. He even goes further to note that such phrases
are usually spoken in "coded" ways so that it seems benign, but really reflect the true racial animus of the situation. What is especially
important is that phrases like "victim culture" is part of that terminology of saccharine-like words that still communicate that only "white people
can determine what they will be affected by" and the "feelings of people of color are something that they don't care about because it doesn't
subscribe to their life experience".

It's the same with phraseology such as "People have to work on their own merits".

This phrase is especially vacous because it ignores the fact that there are still institutions in society in which "merits" were the least
way in which people elevated themselves racially. And merits alone does not wipe way institutional racism, nor does it give anyone non-white with
respect because of their hard work.

Even poor white people judge a non-white person who has worked hard and "earned merits" as being inferior. It doesn't stop.

So these phrases are used as a way to "ignore" disparities in society and continue to further the blanket of silence that white folks like to
retreat to when the fire is getting too hot for the kitchen. And like individuality, it is so deeply ingrained that even white people don't realize
that they are doing this. In fact, they are socially geared to fight against it.

Originally posted by ceci2006
"Victim Culture" is a political statement of the right (especially white males) who do not want to honor cultural diversity.

This is a great example of why this and other phrases are so loaded and cause people to get so emotional. What it means to Ceci is something totally
different than what it means to me. For us to really understand what each other is meaning, we need to read. But I can't make anyone read what I say,
so where does that leave us?

Especially in Bonilla's report on "color-blind" theory on this accord, he especially outlines the aspect that people from the dominant
culture create these vacous phrases as a way to distance themselves from actualities which occur in society. He even goes further to note that such
phrases are usually spoken in "coded" ways so that it seems benign, but really reflect the true racial animus of the situation. What is especially
important is that phrases like "victim culture" is part of that terminology of saccharine-like words that still communicate that only "white people
can determine what they will be affected by" and the "feelings of people of color are something that they don't care about because it doesn't
subscribe to their life experience".

Yet is this not also indicative and true of BOTH racial groups? How is this any different then the expressions of "Uncle Tom" and "Oreo" and
"Dominant Culture".

The one sentence...

"What is especially important is that phrases like "victim culture" is part of that terminology of saccharine-like words that still communicate
that only "white people can determine what they will be affected by" and the "feelings of people of color are something that they don't care about
because it doesn't subscribe to their life experience"

Is specifically disingenuous as it can and does relate directly to both sides of the issue. To accept this as factual, one must accept that blacks
NEVER speak in ways relative to only blacks. To accept that only whites are suspect in this manner. Again, we have a blanket statement that can not
possibly be true or relevant as it completely divides one race into an absolute.

I do not see how it is possible to assign any one aspect of behavior to any one race. Yet that is what is apparent here in this analogy. Any actions
taken by the white race can be directly related in sociological methodology to similar actioins taken by the black race; and vice-versa.

I'm tired of your willingness to accept my failures without encouraging me to get back up. I'm tired of your willingness to accept the
demasculization of the black male. I'm tired of your willingness to accept less than what I'm capable of. In short, I'm tired of what is currently
recognized as African-American leadership.

I've come to the harsh realization that black people have been pimped. Just like a woman of ill-repute, black people been exploited in every way
imaginable, yet our leaders still expect us to keep coming back for more of the same treatment. Even worse, blacks who do become part of the free
market and start to enjoy the priviledges of being an American are either ridiculed or ignored by their leaders.

This poses quite a delimma. Civil rights leaders have limited black society to two choices: Either adopt the victim mentality, wait for the handouts
and be praised -- or accept responsibilities like a man and risk being labeled an "Uncle Tom."

The perpetuation of the victim mentality... does nothing to further long-term the black cause in this country. Quite the opposite, in fact-- like
affirmative action, it perpetuates the stereotype that blacks can't make it on their own, but rather need to tilt the playing field and get help from
"big brother", in this case in the form of the legal system in order to get anywhere in our society. These absurd lawsuits only polarize things
more and anger whites who might otherwise be sympathetic to the real issues affecting the black community-- lack of education, crime, single parent
families, horrible neighborhoods,etc.

These are from my thread, but there are many other (non-race-related) examples there. I really wish you guys would read it. It's only 3 pages...
I've read many, many more pages of your threads... Could this be a little more give-and-take?

Every time someone says the words "Victim Culture", it doesn't mean it's about race, and when it IS about race, it certainly doesn't mean
that black people are stuck in the victim mindset. It's not a racial slur. It's not even an insult (unless it's intended to be, and I acknowledge
that many times it has been intended as an insult.) It's a sociological term. Let's get it out there and study it.

I'm not saying that victim culture is completely made up now, based on some of the info provided. What I AM saying is that there was NO valid reason
for its use in the race related threads here save for making fun of black posters. Neither Ceci nor myself were "embracing the victim culture." We
were offering intelligent, well-sourced discourse on race related subjects. Nevertheless, we were called subscribers to the victim culture.

Thus, I'm still waiting for the explanation, from someone other than nextguy. Without holding my breath, of course.

Originally posted by spacedoubt
Deny ignorance.
Thats why.
You tell people how wrong they are, but make no attempt to right this wrong.
We are here to teach each other. We can all learn from each other.
So, just once more.
How about a better phrase, to replace "victim culture". I won't hound you anymore about it. Just this last opportunity to deny ignorance on this.

Nope. Deny your own ignorance.

I've already learned from trying to explain that anti-Semite is a Zionist catch phrase used to get people critical of Israel/Zionism to shut up.
I've already learned from trying to explain that Arabs are the most numerous group of Semites in the world, and that there are technically more
anti-Arab Semites than anti-Jewish Semites. But, the anti-Arab Semites are NOT called anti-Semites. And you know what I was called when I did
this?

ANTI-SEMITE!

:shk:

So NO, I won't deny your ignorance for you.

Fair enough.
You DO know the title of this thread.
Demysifying the Phrases in race related talk.
I'm still mystified..But I'll move on to someone who might be interested in Denying my ignorance. Thanks anyway!

Originally posted by ceci2006
And yes, when "victim culture" is being used white people do it in such a way to dismiss the experiences and sources of non-white people.

This is a blanket statement of opinion about the minds and motivations of white people. I don't accept it as "fact". I'm sorry. I'm sure some
white people have used it toward black people in that way, but I have never used the term victim culture to a black person as a way of trying to
dismiss their experiences.

Can people understand why non-white people might view such terms as "victim culture" as an attack on their experiences?

Yes. I think just about anyone who is told they're stuck in a victim culture thinks it's an insult and an attack on them. It's not something
people are usually happy to hear.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.